Fictitious-Transfer Solutions in Cooperative Game Theory

  • Roger B. Myerson
Chapter

Abstract

It is easy to see that games with transferable utility (TU) really are just a special case of games with nontransferable utility (NTU), because transfer activities can be remodeled as strategic options in a game “without transferable utility.” Thus, it is natural to ask why game theorists should have devoted substantial efforts to developing solution concepts for games with transferable utility. When I teach cooperative game theory now, more than 45 years after von Neumann and Morgenstern [1944], I try to motivate the old emphasis on coalitional games with transferable utility by two propositions. First, because coalitional interactions can be very complicated, we may initially want to simplify our analysis by assuming transferable utility, so that the set of feasible utility allocations for each coalition can be described by a single number. Second, by the method of fictitious transfers of weighted utility (or λ-transfers), we can easily generalize any solution concept for transferable-utility games to the case of games without transferable utility. Thus, from the perspective of 1990, the method of fictitious transfers appears to justify the original decision of von Neumann and Morgenstern [1944] to concentrate on games with transferable utility. However, the method of fictitious transfers was recognized only after the pivotal breakthrough of Harsanyi [1963]. My purpose in this paper is to reexamine the importance of this method, in the context of the history of its development and some recent results.

Keywords

Hull Nash 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aumann, R. J. [ 1967 ]. “A Survey of Cooperative Games Without Side Payments.” In M. Shubik, ed., Essays in Mathematical Economics pp. 3–27. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aumann, R. J. [ 1985 ]. “An Axiomatization of the Non-Transferable Utility Value.” Econometrica 53:599–612.Google Scholar
  3. Aumann, R. J., and B. Peleg [ 1960 ]. “Von Neumann-Morgenstern Solutions to Cooperative Games Without Sidepayments.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 66:173–179.Google Scholar
  4. Harsanyi, J. C. [ 1959 ]. “A Bargaining Model for the Cooperative n-Person Game.” In R. D. Luce and A. W. Tucker, eds., Contributions to the Theory of Games IV Princeton: Princeton University Press, pages 325–355.Google Scholar
  5. Harsanyi, J. C. [ 1963 ]. “A Simplified Bargaining Model for the n-Person Cooperative Game.” International Economic Review 4:194–220.Google Scholar
  6. Harsanyi, J. C. [1967–8). “Games with Incomplete Information Played by ‘Bayesian’ Players.” Management Science 14:159–182, 320–334, 486–502.Google Scholar
  7. Harsanyi, J. C., and R. Selten. [ 1972 ]. “A Generalized Nash Solution for Two-Person Bargaining Games with Incomplete Information.” Management Science 18:80–106.Google Scholar
  8. Hart, S. [ 1985 ]. “An Axiomatization of Harsanyi’s Nontransferable Utility Solution.” Econometrica. 53:1295–1313.Google Scholar
  9. Isbell, J. R. [ 1960 ]. “A Modification of Harsanyi’s Bargaining Model.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 66:70–73.Google Scholar
  10. Jentzsch, G. [ 1959 ]. “Some Thoughts on the Theory of Cooperative Games.” In R. D. Luce and A. W. Tucker, eds., Contributions to the Theory of Games IV Princeton: Princeton University Press, pages 407–442.Google Scholar
  11. Kalai, E., and M. Smorodinsky [ 1975 ]. “Other Solutions to Nash’s Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 45:513–518.Google Scholar
  12. Luce, R. D., and H. Raiffa [1957]. Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Myerson, R. B. [ 1980 ]. “Conference Structures and Fair Allocation Rules.” International Journal of Game Theory 9:169–182.Google Scholar
  14. Myerson, R. B. [ 1984a ]. “Two-Person Bargaining Problems with Incomplete Information.” Econometrica 52:461–487.Google Scholar
  15. Myerson, R. B. [ 1984b ]. “Cooperative Games with Incomplete Information.” International Journal of Game Theory 13:69–96.Google Scholar
  16. Myerson, R. B. [ 1988 ]. “Sustainable Matching Plans with Adverse Selection.” Northwestern University discussion paper. To appear in Games and Economic Behavior.Google Scholar
  17. Nash, J. F. [ 1950 ]. “The Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 18:155–162.Google Scholar
  18. Nash, J. F. [ 1953 ]. “Two-Person Cooperative Games.” Econometrica 21:128–140.Google Scholar
  19. Neumann, J. von. 1928. “Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele.”Mathematische Annalen 100:295–320. English translation inGoogle Scholar
  20. R. D. Luce and A. W. Tucker, eds., Contributions to the Theory of Games IV Princeton: Princeton University Press, pages 13–42.Google Scholar
  21. Neumann, J. von, and O. Morgenstern [1944]. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2nd ed., 1947.Google Scholar
  22. Owen, G. [ 1972 ]. “A Value for Non-Transferable Utility Games.” International Journal of Game Theory 1:95–109.Google Scholar
  23. Qin, C.-Z. [ 1990 ]. “The Inner Core and the Strongly Inhibitive Set.” CORE discussion paper, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.Google Scholar
  24. Roth, A. E. [ 1980 ]. “Values for Games Without Side-Payments: Some Difficulties with Current Concepts.” Econometrica 48:457–465.Google Scholar
  25. Shapley, L. S. [ 1953 ]. “A Value for n-Person Games.” In H. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker, eds., Contributions to the Theory of Games 2 pp. 307–317. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Shapley, L. S. [ 1964 ]. “”Values of Large Market Games: the Status of the Problem,“ RAND Corporation paper RM-3957PR.Google Scholar
  27. Shapley, L. S. [ 1969 ]. “Utility Comparison and the Theory of Games.” In La Decision Editions du CNRS, Paris, pp 251–263. Reprinted in A. E. Roth, ed. The Shapley Value pp. 307–319, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 33Google Scholar
  28. Shapley, L. S., and M. Shubik [1953]. “Solutions of n-Person Gameswith Ordinal Utilities” (abstract). Econometrica 21: 348.Google Scholar
  29. Shubik, M. [ 1982 ]. Game Theory in the Social Sciences: Concepts and Solutions. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger B. Myerson
    • 1
  1. 1.J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of ManagementNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations